white house about 8:00 this morning and he'll hold a briefing on the damage in florida right around 11:00. u.s. senate about to gavel in to get the day started. more work expected on the 2018 expense program and policy bill and also see some debate on an executive nomination. votes are possible throughout the day in the senate. the house is also in session, members gavelled in this morning at 9:00. they'll continue work on an anti-gang bill, also on amendments to 2018 federal spending. votes coming up shortly in the u.s. house. of course, you can see live coverage on our companion network, c-span and live coverage of the u.s. senate about to get underway here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, from whom comes all holy desires, we thank you

for all those who give their lives to serve you and country. may they realize that they are doing your work on earth when they strive faithfully to follow your precepts. use our lawmakers to bring comfort, renewal, and empowerment to our nation and world. take them along yet untrodden paths, through perils unknown, to your desired destination. may they live in peace and contentment, resting in the knowledge that you are directing their steps.

we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c, september 14 , 2017, to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable john hoeven , a senator from the state of north dakota, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g.hatch, president pro tempore.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: today senators will keep working to pass the national defense authorization act, the legislation that authorizes the resources, capabilities, pay and benefits that our service members rely on to be successful. the operational missions and tasks ahead for our men and women in uniform are as profuse as they are challenging. that's why it's essential that we meet our commitment to them by providing the equipment and the training they need to accomplish their missions. we should always remember that we have an all-volunteer force and in turn we must support our warriors with the pay and benefits they and their families count on at home. this national defense authorization touches on every

one of these issues. we've already made an initial down payment toward rebuilding the military and restoring combat readiness with the spring funding bill. let's take this opportunity to add to that progress now. as chairman mccain pointed out yesterday, this bill is the product of hard work from both sides, and committee republicans and democrats offered scores, scores of amendments that were ultimately adopted to the bill that's before us. in all, 27 of the armed services committee members voted to favorably report this bill out. so there's no reason it shouldn't earn the same kind of bipartisan backing from the full senate now. i look forward to taking a vote in support of the men and women in uniform who courageously put their lives on the line to protect and defend each of us. as i do so, i'll be thinking of the service members and their families back in my home state of kentucky, and i know so many

other colleagues will be thinking of the service members in their home states and those deployed abroad as well. so let's keep working to bring this national defense authorization bill over the finish line. now on another matter, mr. president, in recent weeks the plight of the rohinga has received great international attention. even in the best of times, this beleagured ethnic minority has eeked out a marginal existence in burma's state. rohinga are stateless and have faced discrimination and isolation. media reports indicate that their existence has gotten much worse over the past several weeks. i'm deeply troubled by the humanitarian situation along the burmese-bangladeshi border and the vie lance in the -- violence in the roquin state

must stop. publicly condemning aung san is not constructivive. yesterday i had a chance to speak with suu kyi on the phone. i would emphasize that she's the same person she was before. her position in the burmese government is an exceedingly difficult one. she is state counselor, but by law her civilian government had virtually no authority over the burmese military. according to the burmese constitution, the army is essentially autonomous and it has control on the ground of the rohingya situation. unfounded criticism of suu kyi exaggerates her ability to command the military which the burmese constitution does not actually allow her to do. and the political evolution of representative government in that country is certainly not over. she must and is working to

promote peace and reconciliation within her national context, but burma's path to a more democratic government is not yet complete and it will not miraculously occur overnight. so i'd like to report to the senate that during our call, dol su agreed with the need for immediate and improved access of humanitarian assistance to the region, particularly by the international red cross. and she conveyed that she is working toward that end. she reiterated her view of the universality of human dignity and of the pressing need to pursue peace and reconciliation among the communities in rakhine state. she emphasized to me that violations of human rights will need to be addressed. moreover, she stressed that the situation in rakhine state is a protacted, long-standing problem and she's trying very hard to improve conditions.

we will soon receive a follow-on briefing from her office. right now the most important thing is for the violence in rakhine to stop and to try to ensure the flow to bangladesh to help the refugees and internally displaced persons. that, mr. president, is where our focus should be. burma's path -- burma's path to representative government is not at all certain and is certainly not over. and attacking the single political leader who has worked to further democracy within burma is likely to hinder that objective over the long run. one final matter, comprehensive tax reform represents the single-most important action we can take now to grow the economy and help middle-class families get ahead. it's the president's high

priority. it's a priority we share here in congress, the work of the tax writing committees on tax reform goes back literally years, and it continues today. this morning the senate finance committee will hold another in a series of hearings on comprehensive tax reform. under the leadership of chairman hatch, the committee is working to simplify the tax system to make it work better for american individuals, families, and businesses. as chairman hatch knows, our current tax code is overly complex with rates that are too high and incentives that often make literally no sense. senator hatch understands how our broken code makes it harder for american businesses of all sizes to compete and win in an increasingly competitive global economy. how it actually incentivizes our companies to shift operations and american jobs overseas. chairman hatch and colleagues on both sides of the aisle

understand how our broken code makes it harder for middle-class families to succeed, how it depresses wages, weighs down job creation and crushes opportunity. it's time to fundamentally rethink our tax code to make taxes lower, simpler, and fairer for american families. now fortunately weech -- we hava once in a generation opportunity to do that. this morning's hearing in senate finance is a part of the wide ranging conversation to shift the economy into high gear after eight years of an obama economy that too often hurt the middle class and seemed to hardly work for anyone but the ultra wealthy. with lower taxes and a growing economy, jobs can come back from overseas and stay here. families can keep more money in their pockets to spend in the way they want to. and individuals can have access to more opportunities to buy a new home, to start a business or to send their kids to

college. to put it simply, our efforts are about more jobs, more opportunity and more money in the pockets of the middle class. without tax reform, american families will be forced to continue living under an unfair tax code with rates that are too high. american jobs will continue to be shipped overseas and small businesses will be increasingly uncompetitive against foreigner foreigner -- foreign companies. mr. president, that is not going to benefit the middle class. that does not benefit the middle class. these are the real consequences of the current tax code and we should all want to work together to put an end to it. our friends on the other side of the aisle say they support comprehensive reform of the system. i hope they'll join us in this effort in a serious way. finally, i'd like to thank president trump and his team for their work throughout this tax process. we'll continue to regularly

engage with them working together to bring relief to the american people. i'd also like to thank chairman hatch for his leadership on this issue, along with my colleagues i'll keep working to deliver relief and economic hope to our middle class.

the presiding officer: the senate democrat leader. mr. schumer: good morning, mr. president. now, as we continue to work on the ndaa, the democratic side is committed to working with the republican side in good faith to finish this very important legislation. i'm pleased the managers have been able already to include more than 100 amendments in the substitute. i hope we can do another package today. senator mccain and reed are managing this bill with their usual great skill. i very much appreciate their hard work. i particularly know how important this legislation is to senator mccain. he wants to see it through, see it through as soon as possible. now, -- and we're going to help in that regard, of course. now, mr. president, last night leader pelosi and i had a

constructive meeting with president trump and several members of his cabinet. one of our most productive discussions was about the daca program in which we all agreed on a framework. pass daca protections and additional border security measures, excluding the wall. we agreed that the president would support enshrining the daca protections into law. in fact, something he stated for a while needed to be done, and encourage -- and the president would also encourage the house and senate to act. what remains to be negotiated with the details of border security with a mutual goal of finalizing all the details as soon as possible. while both sides agreed that the wall would not be any part of this agreement, the president made clear he intends to pursue it at a later time, and we made clear that we would continue to oppose it.

the president -- and if you listened to the president's comments this morning, director mulvaney's comments this morning, it is clear that what leader pelosi and i put out last night was exactly accurate, confirmed again this morning by our statement, by the president's statement before he got on the helicopter to go to florida and director mulvaney's comments. we have reached an understanding on this issue. we have to work out details. we can work together on a border security package with the white house and get daca on the floor quickly. let me talk for a minute about border security. we democrats are for border security. we passed a robust border security package as part of immigration reform in 2013, as you, mr. president, know better than anybody else. we're not for the wall. we'll never be for the wall. it's expensive, it's ineffective, it involves a lot

of difficult eminent domain, taking people's property, and, apparently, it's not being paid for by mexico. in fact, i listened to fox news this morning -- i'm starting to do that to see what's going on over there -- and they keep saying the president promised a wall in the campaign. yeah, he also promised that mexico would pay for it. where's mexico? they have said 12 times they're not paying for it. that's not the promise he made. and finally on the wall, it sends a terrible symbol to the world about the u.s., about who we are, what kind of country we are. for decades, since the 1880's, a beautiful statue in the harbor in the city in which i live has been the symbol of the world to america, that great torch symbolizes what a noble land we are. can you imagine if in future decades that symbol was replaced by a big, foreboding wall?

that's not who america is, was, or hopefully will be. now, we're for sensible border security. as i mentioned. and there are a lot more effective ways of securing the border than a wall. a wall can be scaled over. for those who love the wall, they have heard of ladders. a wall can be tunneled under. i'm sure those who support the wall have heard of shovels. it's a medieval solution for a modern problem. a game of thrones idea for a world that is a lot closer to "star wars." and the thing is we have new modern solutions using our best technology. we discussed some of them at the white house last night. drones. these drones can spot the difference from a deer or a human being crossing the border.

we have great sensory equipment. our military has specialized in this kind of stuff. a lot of it's made in syracuse, new york, i'm proud to say. we can rebuild roads along the border, talk to the people on the border patrol, and they say a lot of places don't have roads. so if they see someone crossing the border, they can't get to them. and, of course, there is the bipartisan mccall-thompson bill in the house that has broad bipartisan support that sets certain standards. every one of these ideas would provide better, more effective border security than a medieval wall. so there is still much to be done. we have to put meat on the bones of the agreement. details will matter, but it was a very, very positive step for the president to commit to daca protections without insisting on the inclusion of or even a

debate about border walls. now, on the equifax data breach, mr. president, what has transpired over the past several months is one of the most egregious examples of corporate malfeasance since enron. equifax has exposed the most sensitive personal information of over half of the united states citizens. names, addresses, social security numbers, driver's licenses, and in some cases even their credit history. clearly, there were inadequate data security standards at equifax, which is doubly troubling and deeply troubling on a number of levels. when you're a credit agency like equifax, you have two principal jobs, calculating and reporting accurate credit scores and protecting the sensitive information of individuals that are funneled through that process. equifax stunningly and epically

failed to perform one of its two essential duties as a company, to protect sensitive information of the people in its files. that is unacceptable, and there's no other word for it. even following the failure by equifax, this huge, massive failure, the company and its leadership failed to communicate this breach to the public effectively. and in the aftermath of the announcement failed to address public concern. the company knew about the breach and did not notify consumers that their information had been compromised for far too long a period. because equifax waited so long to report the breach, consumers were put behind the eight ball. their information was potentially compromised without their knowledge. they had no ability to protect themselves. meanwhile, hackers could attempt to take out loans in their name. potentially use the information

for identity fraud to perpetrate a number of fraudulent schemes with sensitive information these horrible hackers have obtained. once the breach was eventually announced, consumers found themselves forced to provide sensitive information to equifax in order to verify whether they were impacted by the breach. in order to sign up for the company's credit monitoring services, customers were forced to agree to terms prohibiting their ability to bring a legal claim against equifax. is that disgusting? equifax creates the problem and then says customer, if you want to solve it, you have to give up your rights. outrageous. equifax was saying we royally screwed up, but trust us, we won't screw up again, but if we do screw up, you can't sue us. to make matters worse, in the weeks leading up to the announcement of their breach,

while customers were in the dark, several executives at equifax sold off their stock in the company. they claim they had no knowledge of the breach. if they did, it would be one of the most brazen and shameful attempts of insider trading that i can recall. so we need to get to the bottom of this, the very bottom, a murky bottom, the dirty bottom. the senate must hold hearings on the equifax breach where these executives are called to account. there is no question about that. but beyond that, five things need to happen in the near future. i'd like to see them in the next week. equifax must, first, commit proactively to reach out to all impacted individuals to notify them that their personal identifiable information may have been compromised, and if known, inform them of exactly what information has been released. second, provide credit

monitoring and i.d. theft protection services to all impacted individuals for no less than ten years. if an individual chooses not to use the credit monitoring service offered by equifax because they naturally don't trust them, then equifax should reimburse that individual for the costs of the alternative credit monitoring service they sign up for. third, offer any impacted individual the ability to freeze their credit at any point for up to ten years. fourth, remove arbitration provisions from any agreement or terms of use for products, services, or disclosures offered by equifax. this means that equifax will proactively come in compliance with the sfpb forced arbitration rule and there will be no question that an individual will not have all legal rights at their disposal. fifth, equifax must agree to

testify before the senate, s.e.c. and comply with any fines, penalties or new standards recommended at the conclusion of these investigations. and if equifax does not agree to these five things in one week's time, the c.e.o. of the company and the entire board should step down. these five steps are common sense. they are the baseline of decency. if equifax can't commit to them, their leadership's not up to the job and the entire leadership must be replaced. let me tell you, folks. if joe public, if the average citizen did anything close to what the corporate leaders did that led to this data breach and the awful response to it, that average citizen would be fired immediately. to give the equifax a week to

implement these things is overly generous to people who did horrible stuff and then after it happened did nothing -- virtually nothing -- that showed that they had remorse. it's only right that the c.e.o. and the board step down if they can't reach this modicum of corporate decency by next week. finally, mr. president, i have a lot to say. taxes, last night at the white house, president trump said he didn't want his tax plan to benefit the very wealthy. that's a good thing. we democrats agree. 45 of the 48 of us signed an agreement that the tax break shouldn't go to the top people. but the devil when the president says that is always in the details and we haven't seen any

details. we haven't seen anything resembling a plan yet. we hear it's being written in a backroom by the so-called big six, all republican. but i haven't seen it, ranking member wyden hasn't seen it. no democrat in the senate hasn't seen it. i can tell you one thing, if the president's tax plan repeals or rolls back the estate tax, it will be clear that a lot of his benefits the very rich, contrary to all of his words. i'd remind everyone that only 5,200 of the 2.7 million estates in this country will pay any taxes this year. the estate tax only kicks in when couples with estates of nearly $11 million transfer their wealth. go to north dakota -- and i know you have nice family farms out there -- ask how many of you

have an estate worth $11 million. and if they do, i'm willing to exempt a family farm that is over that from the estate tax, but almost no one does. a study by the center of policy priorities showed that of the 5,200 estates -- here we have 2.7 million estates -- only 5, 5,200 qualify for the estate tax, and of those 50 are small farms and businesses. let's exempt those 50. let's make all these other guys pay. we need the money. they are rich. god bes them -- god bless them. now, when president trump says that the estate tax is a burden

on the family farmer, i honestly don't know what he's talking about. there may be a few, they may make a lot of noise. god bless them. s that their right as -- that's their right as americans. but there are very few. very, very few. that's not what the facts say. of the 2.7 million taxable estates, just 50 are farms and small businesses that would benefit from the repeal of the estate tax. 2.7 million, taxable estates, 50. there was a moment last night during the meeting at the white house when the estate tax came up. a few of the president's advisors said no one pays the estate tax. there has been news that gary cohen said only morons pay the estate tax. what they mean, of course, is

that people who are rich enough can find their way around it. first, they are wrong. repealing the estate tax would add $269 billion to the deficit over ten years -- $269 billion. there are a lot of people paying the estate tax, maybe they are morons as gary cohen once called them, maybe they are not, but there's a lot of money that comes in from the estate tax. but mr. cohen and there are others who say that, bring up an important point, the right thing to do is not repeal the estate tax, but close the loopholes. if you have an estate worth that much, you should pay the estate tax and not finding clever ways to avoid paying it. if you're rich, you pay it. god bless you, that's the american way, but pay your fair

share. so, mr. president, democrats want to participate in reforming our tax code. there are lots of good things we can agree on, closing loopholes like this one, cutting taxes for the middle class, helping businesses, bringing offshore income back to the united states. we have no reconciliations, that means do it together, not how you did health care, which didn't end up with a great result. second, no tax cuts for the top 1% who are doing just fine, god bless them, and fiscal responsibility. we should not increase the deficit as we cut taxes, particularly now that we're going to have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to help the beleaguered states of texas and florida. some republicans have characterized those three principles as lines in the sand that show democrats aren't serious about tax reform. i'd ask my republican colleagues, which of the three do you not agree with?

do you think we should cut taxes on the top 1%? do you think we should create deficits by cutting taxes on the wealthy? and do you think you should just go at this alone? if you agree with those, fine, but don't say these are lines in the sand. we are giving policy guidance that has virtually unanimous support in our caucus. it seems to me -- i ask these -- these three principles guided the 1986 tax reform which was the most successful tax reform in decades. it seems that it is not democrats who moved the goalposts on tax reform here, but some republicans no longer want to play by the same rules. i yield the floor to my dear friend, the chairman of the armed services, who is doing a great job of getting this bill through. the presiding officer: under the preeches order, the leadership -- previous order, leadership time is closed.

morning business is closed. the senate will resume h.r. 2810. the clerk: an act to authorize appropriations for military activities for the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i want to thank my friend from new york and i want to thank him for the cooperation that we have for the consideration of this important legislation. i would ask the democratic leader, is it reasonable to assume that we could finish this up today or set a time on monday? mr. schumer: absolutely. mr. mccain: good. i hope we can do that. i want to thank again the leader from new york who has been very cooperative to me and the senator from rhode island as we have moved forward with this legislation. thank you.

mr. president, i'd like to begin by offering my thoughts and prayers to the marines who were injured yesterday when their amphibious assault vehicle caught fire during a training exercise. 15 marines are hospitalized and five are in critical condition. i join all of my colleagues in hoping for a full and speedy recovery for each of these brave young service members. last night, unfortunately are, the majority leader was required to fail cloture on the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2018. we have gotten a lot done in a short time this legislation has been on the floor. i know i speak for many of my colleagues when i say it is my hope that we will be able to do more. i want to thank my friend from rhode island. i want to thank members who have been very helpful and cooperative in this effort as we have considered a -- a 227-0

vote through the committee and that have engaged in thoughtful debate and we have adopted 277 amendments from both republicans and democrats. i sound like a broken record, mr. president, but this is the way the united states senate should conduct business. the authorizes committee reports out legislation that has been examined with hearings and debate and amendments and appears on the floor and we have additional debates and amendments and people can vote yes or no, but they are informed. it's -- it is -- it is a violation of our oath of office when we are told that one-fifth of the gross national product, i.e. health care, is going to be decided by a skinny repeal that none of us had seen until an

hour or two before. that's not the way that the united states senate should do business. we're not perfect. we're going to have to file cloture on this bill. we're not going to have some debate and votes -- at least four important issues. but we will have been on this bill, we will have adopted 277 amendments, we had hours and hours of hearings, we had a week of putting this together in a bipartisan basis, and it was reported out by over one-quarter of the united states senate to zero. that is the way we should be doing business. now, i will freely admit that national security probably is at the higher level of importance and should be than the average legislation, but shouldn't we learn from this that if we sit down together we argue, we fight, we debate, and then we reach consensus and then we come to the floor of the senate and

to the american people with something that we are proud of and that we can defend. there are still, as i mentioned, some issues that we are negotiating back and forth -- and we are negotiating -- and hopefully we can get those done before cloture is invoked. i hope that the majority leader and the democrat leader would agree to a time certain for final passage. and let me just say, i support beginning to move toward final passage which provides our armed forces the resources that they need. by the way, again, i want to emphasize on the armed services committee we have had dozens of hearings on topics like the global threat environment, cuts in military readiness and modernization.

those hearings informed the work of the committee as we moved towards the legislation. so i know that all of us from time to time like to take credit for accomplishments that maybe we're not as responsible for as we would advertise, but i want to say that i'm in the just proud of john mccain and jack reed, i am proud of the 27 members of the armed services committee who -- and the debate was spirited. there is not -- there is not -- it's not the bobsy twins. we fight in a spirited fashion. we defend what we believe in. but once the committee has decided, then we move on. so my colleagues have been embraced the spirit of that process and we've introduced more than 500 amendments for consideration this week and the senator from rhode island and i negotiated a number of very good amendments which have the support of both republicans and

democrats. so we still have some hard issues that are remaining and i will be talking more about them. we are still negotiating as to see if we can come to an agreement on those and i'm guardly optimistic we can get most of that agreement done and we'll know later on this morning or early this afternoon. let me also point out to my colleagues what we're talking about. we've seen navy ships, army and marine corps helicopters training crashing during routine operations and these have cost the lives of dozens of our men and women in uniform, and there's many reasons for these tragedies. but the one that this body cannot avoid responsibility for is that we are failing to provide our military with resources they need to perform the missions we're asking them. we are asking them to do too

much with too little. the result is an overworked, strained force with aging equipment and not enough of it. we can point fingers and assign blame all we want, but at the end of the day the constitutional responsibility to raise monies and maintain navies lies with us, with the congress. that of course brings up the issue of sequestration, which i will address later on. so i just want to point out again the men and women who wear the uniform of our country are the best of our country. they do everything we ask of them with great courage. it's time for this body to show a similar measure of courage, end the threat sequestration poses to their mission and their lives. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i again want to thank the chairman for his leadership. it's been critical.

it's been demonstrated throughout the process in terms of our subcommittee hearings, our committee hearings. but even before that the chairman insisted upon hearings that were comprehensive so that as we prepared for this ndaa we had a sense of the threats we face, the resources we needed. and as a result, as the chairman pointed out, we were able to send to the floor a very strong defense bill. since that time, working together, we have been able to incorporate over 100 amendments that improve the bill. as the chair reported out, we are still working on issues that we hope we can bring forward for either adoption or through debate, a vote. and i hope we can do that. because, again, the chairman pointed out this is a rare instance of regular order.

the committee report coming to the floor, moving to it by a strong vote, taking up and working to get amendments that are not controversial into a package, and then going ahead and we hope setting up debate, discussion and votes on more difficult and challenging issues. and then finally, and as i was encouraged by senator schumer's comment that we could anticipate a date final for passage of this bill. so we are confident that we will have a national defense bill leave the senate and go to conference right now. the final outcome of that bill is still to be determined. i hope we can add more to it and that is a very principled process of talking back and forth. and again, i don't think any of this would have been done without the leadership of the chairman and his insistence that we adhere not only to regular order but that we don't forget

this is ultimately about the men and women who serve us. with that, mr. president, i will yield. mr. mccain: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: the senator from rhode island, my dear friend, jack reed is too kind. it takes two to tango. the partnership we have developed over the years has made it possible for us to get to the place of having this happen today. he has not only my gratitude, that of the men and women who are serving, because of his advocacy and his leadership. mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. ernst: mr. president. -- ms. klobuchar: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i first want to thank senator mccain and senator reed for their leadership at this important time in the rest of the world. i think that's why you see this bill proceeding. but this bill will be so much

stronger if we make sure that we not only defend our shores and stand by our troops, but that we also defend the security of our democracy. and i so appreciate senator mccain and senator reed supporting this amendment that i have with senator lindsey graham of south carolina. and this must be included in this bill, and we are having a situation where one or two members on the other side of the aisle are not allowing it to proceed. the timing is critical. the 2018 election is only 400-some days away, and that's why you see us pushing this bill and doing everything we can to get it either included in the managers' package or to get a vote. this amendment which is supported by the freedom caucus and in the house is led by the head of the freedom caucus, you

may ask why. well, there are a lot of republicans who would like to see states be able to keep running their own elections. i agree with that. i like the fact that we have del centralized elections. but the hacking was so real in this last election that intelligence agencies have now established that there were 21 states that there were attempts made to hack into their election software. we know that this is going to happen again, and we must stands -- stand ready. we must protect our democracy. and that is why instead of having a successful hack attack in this next election, why don't we prepare ourselves so we can keep the decentralized nature of our election. so that's why you see such broad support for this amendment. i came to the floor yesterday to fight for a vote, a simple up-or-down vote on the bipartisan klobuchar-graham amendment. i also want to thank senator

lankford of oklahoma as well as senator harris of california for their bipartisan work and support for this amendment. this amendment has the support, but one or two members are blocking it. an amendment that has the support of the chairman and ranking member of the armed services committee because they understand that election security is national security. this provision simply says that it is the policy of the united states to defend against and respond to cyber attacks to our democratic system. you have to have your head in the sand if you don't know that this has been a problem, whether you're in a business and have had information stolen, whether you are someone that's been scammed or has had stuff sent to you on your e-mail, or whether you are a voter that are concerned that simply when you are exercising your freedom to

vote that someone's going to come in and steal your own private information, or worse yet, change what you did and change the result of an election. in the words of bruce fein, a former reagan official, passing the klobuchar-graham amendment is imperative because public confidence in the reliability of elections is a cornerstone of national security. i am stunned that we weren't simply able to include this amendment, and i still have hope that we can. i'm here to fight for this amendment so vigorously today because we need to get this done now. we need to get the authorization done now so that we can start the process of putting grants out to states so that they can upgrade their election equipment, have backup paper ballots and simply employ the best practices that we believe we need to protect ourselves from the perpetrators in russia or in any other foreign entity.

we need to make sure that our election equipment in every big city and in every small town in america, in every county is a sophisticated as the bad guys that are trying to break into it. that is all this is about. i don't think anyone can go home to their constituents and they say that they blocked this. how on earth can we pass a bill that authorizes billions of dollars in spending and refuses to simply authorize a relatively smaller amount of money to upgrade our election equipment? predictions are that this would cost about the same amount of money that we spend on military bands every year. bands, music bands. i love military bands. there's nothing i don't like better, and i want to keep our military bands strong. but all senator graham and i are saying is i think maybe the

protection of our entire election, guaranteeing the freedom of americans to pick the kentucky -- pick the candidate that they choose, whether a republican, democrat or independent, is just as important as the music that they hear celebrating our democracy. you can't have music celebrating our democracy if you don't have a fair democracy. u.s. national securities have been sounding the alarm that our voting systems will continue to be a target in the future. the idea that we would pass the defense authorization bill and not address this threat is mind-boggling. it is literally congressional malpractice. according to the department of homeland security, now run by the trump administration, russian hackers attempted to hack at least 21 states' election systems in 2016. earlier this year we also learned that russia launched

cyber attacks against a u.s. voting software company and the e-mails of more than 100 local election officials. the former director of national intelligence, james clapper, recently testified that russia will continue to interfere in our political system. this is what he said: i believe russia is now emboldened. the word is emboldened. to continue such activities in the future both here and around the world and to do so even more intensely. if there has ever been a clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the very foundation of our democratic political system, this episode is it. vigilance, that's what we need right now. this is not about one party or the other. i think senator rubio said it best when he said one election, it might affect one election and one candidate. the next election it's going to

affect the other. no one has any idea when you're dealing with outside foreign entities that are trying to interfere with our democracy and trying to bring down our democracy in the eyes of the world, you don't know who they're going to affect. you just know that they're trying to do it. so what do you do? you put in the necessary money in the defense authorization act in authorization for that to stop this from happening. in order to safeguard future elections, state and local officials must have the tools and resources they need to prevent hacks and safeguard election infrastructure. they don't need those resources in two years. they don't need us debating this for three years. they need these resources now. you ask the secretary of state, democrat and republican who are supporting this bill all over the country, you ask the local election officials and they'll tell you they need it now. the next federal election in

2018, is just 419 days away. and as you know, it takes time for them to plan. it takes time for them to get the right equipment. and it takes time for them to get the information from cyber experts to make sure whether or not their systems are secure. experts agree that if we want to improve cybersecurity ahead of 2018 election, we must act now. that's why i am fighting so hard for this amendment. i don't think we can just wait around and see if there's another bill that we can attach it to next summer. no. that won't work. in order to protect our election system, we need to do three things. first, we must bring state and local election officials cybersecurity experts, national security personnel together to provide guidance on how states can best protect themselves. these recommendations should be easily accessible so every

information officer and election official in every small town can access them. as you know, a lot of states themselves still don't have the full information about the hacking in the 21 states. that's a problem. many state officials i've talked to say that they are still in the dark about threats to their election systems. that can't continue. we need our national security officials to be sharing information about the potential for attacks. not the day before the election when they can't do anything, when they have a system that doesn't have paper ballot backups. no. they need that information now, and we need to help them not just get that information but make the changes they need. this means create a framework for information sharing that acts as an alarm system against cyber intruders. our amendment would simply establish that alarm system. second, the federal government must provide states with the

resources to implement the best practices developed by states and cybersecurity experts. a meaningful effort to protect our election systems will require those resources. as i mentioned before, predictions are it's about the same amount of money that we spend every year on military bans. i think that's a bargain when you're looking to protect our democracy. i think most americans would agree with me, republicans or democrats -- which is why there is such widespread support for this amendment -- when i say that protecting our democracy from foreign cyber attacks and legislate americans have the freedom to decide who they want to elect instead of someone in russia is probably money well spent. finally, we need better auditing of our elections. that means voter-verified paper ballot backup systems in every state. that is fundamental to protecting our elections and improving public confidence in

the reliability of elections. our amendment would accelerate the move to paper ballots by providing states with the resources they need to get there. the vast majority of our states simply don't have that system in place. in short, our amendment would help states block cyber attacks, secure voter registration logs and voter data so that people don't get their addresses in the hands of a foreign government or maybe even the data on who they voted for or what party they belong to. upgrade election auditing procedures and create secure and useful information sharing about threats. i am not alone in this fight. as i mentioned, senators graham, lankford and harris are also pushing for the senate to do its job and include this provision. representative meadows, the leader of the house freedom caucus, and democratic congressman jim langevin

introduced companion legislation in the house. again, why is the freedom caucus strongly behind this bill? well, they are behind this bill because they want to preserve states' elections. they want to preserve the rights of states to have their own elections. they are concerned enough because they have looked at the intelligence reports that this next election could blow it all up. are we going to look back at it again, people who hold this up, peoples whose names will be revealed? will they say oops, i guess we made a mistake. it's going to be on their hands. it's going to be on their hands. this is the moment to do it. i repeat. reneed to get the authorization in place so we can get the grant money out to the states so that they can upgrade their election equipment. dozens of former republican national security officials are pushing for the senate to pass this amendment. they have written op-eds, called their representatives, and worked to inform the public about the need to take action

now. michael chertoff, who served as secretary of homeland security under president george w. bush, published a piece this month in "the wall street journal" calling on congress to take action and pass the klobuchar-graham amendment. he noted that our amendment would address the cybersecurity challenge in a way that is, quote, fiscally responsible, respectful of states' policy-making powers and proactive in dealing with the most pressing vulnerabilities. as i noted, bruce fein, the reagan department of justice official, said the amendment would enormously strengthen defenses against setbacks that could compromise the integrity of elections in the u.s. and undermine legitimacy of government. a bipartisan group of former national security officials sent a letter to senate leadership, pushing for a vote on this amendment. they noted that attacks on u.s. voting systems threaten the most basic underpinning of american

self-government, and these attacks are growing in sophistication, and they are growing in scale. as we all know, states administer elections, and if you talk to the local election official, just call any of them up, you will find that they are adamant about protecting states' rights in this area. well, we want to help them. a bipartisan group of ten secretaries of state sent a letter urging the senate to pass this amendment. they want this amendment to pass because it would provide vital resources. how do you truly expect someone in a town of 1,000 people to be able to be up on the latest cybersecurity attacks from some sophisticated hackers in a warehouse in russia? really? i don't think so. that's why while we want to keep the decentralized nature of our elections because in some ways, one, we like it, two, it gives us protection because it's not all in one system, we know we have to realize that in these

rural towns and in these rural areas, they are not going to have the updated, sophisticateed cybersecurity protection equipment unless we tell them how they can do it and give them help to get there. the national association of counties, a group that unites america's 3,069 counties, also endorses this amendment. why? because our country -- in our country, most of our elections are run by county officials. as i noted, our decentralized system is both a strength and a weakness. strength because we have multiple systems so all of our information isn't in one place. but american elections are increasingly an easy target because many local election systems are using election technology that is completely outdated. a survey of 274 election administrators in 28 states found that most said that their

systems need upgrades. 43 states rely on electronic voting or tabulation systems that are at least ten years old. well, do you think that the russians and these other foreign entities that want to mess up with our democracy, that they are not aware of this, that that equipment is ten years old? i'm not telling them anything new right now. of course they're aware of it. so what are we doing? we're just letting people in these small towns in alaska or iowa to sit there and wait and see if it happens. guess what? if they get into one locality or get into one state, do you think that doesn't undermine the integrity of our whole democracy and our country? of course it does. local election officials who are passionate about keeping the federal government out of state elections support our amendment because it strikes the balance that our federal system demands when it comes for the administration of elections. despite, as i say, the strong

bipartisan support for this amendment, the strong support and leadership of the freedom caucus, there are members in this body who are still blocking a vote. they happen to not be on my side of the aisle, so i implore my friends on the other side of the aisle to figure this out and let this either be included in the manager's package or come up for a vote where i know it would pass. republican and democratic senators support this amendment. cybersecurity experts support this amendment. republican and democratic former national security officials support this amendment. state and local officials support this amendment. so i ask you why is this not included? we don't have an answer. there is actually no good answer except for a bunch of procedural gobbledygook, which of course if it had gone through the regular order and been allowed a hearing, which it was not, then we would have had the hearing. we were blocked from having a

hearing, so now, as is my right, i am bringing this before this body. the integrity of our election system is the cornerstone of our democracy. the freedom to choose our leaders and know with full confidence that those leaders would show them in free and fair elections. that is something that americans have fought and died for since our country was founded. obstructing efforts to improve election security is an insult to everyone that has fought for freedom and those who work every day to protect our democracy. members standing in the way of this bipartisan amendment to protect our election infrastructure are literally committing democracy malpractice. our attitude must be to roll up our sleeves to get this done. the american people deserve nothing less. i see my friend, senator mccain, is here on the floor. again, i appreciate his support and his and senator reed's work not only on this bill but their

work to try to include this amendment in the package. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i want to thank the senator from minnesota. she has been an advocate on this issue for a number of years. obviously, as she stated with some articulation that this was -- we're talking about the fundamental of democracy, and the threat to it has probably never been greater. she also understands there is an issue of germaneness and the committee of responsibility and all that. but i just want to tell the senator from minnesota, i appreciate her advocacy. this issue is not going away. i look forward to continuing to work with her because this is really maybe in some ways one of the greatest threats to democracy that we have faced, and i know that she has been an advocate on this issue for a number of years. so i want to thank her. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i would ask unanimous consent that senators portman and warner be added as cosponsors of the reed amendment number 939, relating to a strategy for countering maligned russian influence. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mrs. ernst: mr. president. throughout my time in iowa, i have heard our service chiefs testify time and again to the hollowing of america's military as a result of insufficient and unpredictable funding. simultaneously, external dangers have grown in size and scope. now, sadly, for the first time in decades, we are forced to confront not one but multiple existential threats to the american way of life. an aggressive russia, expanding china, nuclear north korea, the various iran and relentless

global terror networks put our lives and the lives of future generations at risk. america is once again in crisis. inaction, obstruction for partial commitments are not options. this year's national defense authorization act provides us an opportunity to fulfill our duty to provide america's soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardsmen the tools they need to accomplish all that we demand. i find it particularly fitting this bill came to the floor the week of september 11, an anniversary of unparalleled adversity, but also one of national unity. on that day and the days that followed 16 years ago, the best of america eclipsed the evil of

terror. we came together for the sake of our security, demonstrating to the world america's resilience. there is no greater symbol of that resilience than those who serve in uniform. secretary mattis reminded us of that on monday when he said, quote, the men and women of america's armed forces have signed a blank check to protect the american people and to defend the constitution, a check payable with their lives. end quote. the least the senate can do in return is authorize and prioritize congressional efforts to keep faith with that promise. at the same time, we are under no obligation to find over-suggest, behind timeline

defense programs with a blank check of their own. to the contrary, we have an oversight obligation to the american taxpayers, those in and out of uniform, to ensure proper stewardship of their hard-earned dollars. that is why i, along with my colleagues on the armed services committee, drafted and passed unanimously the bill before you. in it, we have prescribed a clear and comprehensive plan to rebuild our military, to decisively deter or defeat any adversary. however, we are also holding the department accountable for each dollar it spends. for my part, as a member of the armed services committee and chair of the emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee, i focused on three priorities. first, i supported our troops and their families by making senior enlisted pay scales

commensurate with job requirements. by combating sexual assault and retaliation. and by facilitating federal direct hiring authority for military spouses. i extended that support to the battlefield by promoting enhanced standards for things like parachutes, aircraft life support systems, and counter-drone technologies. second, i advanced policy initiatives to increase cooperation with international partners, to codify a more comprehensive counterterror strategy, and to reaffirm america's support for our european friends by putting russia on notice for its aggression in the ukraine and crimea. finally, i included measures to optimize existing institutions such as our national guard cyber capabilities and to ease regulatory burdens so the best

ideas and products from our universities and private companies can bolster national security at a lower cost. i have led important efforts to hold d.o.d. accountable by requiring enhanced program management standards and by joining senators grassley and perdue in demanding the department finally meet its 26-year overdue statutory obligation to complete a clean audit. colleagues, let us be clear. no one wants america's military to be our first or only option, but we must also acknowledge this truth -- it is fundamental to our security this a ready military remains an option. the fy-18 ndaa is a vital step

toward providing that security. seeing it through to fruition as part of a larger effort to reassert our power of the purse, that's the next step. there will be time to debate nondefense policies and budgets later. and as legislators, our job is to have these very debates. let us take the first step now, and i urge all of my colleagues to support the ndaa, follow through in the months ahead, fulfill our obligation to realize its goal. we can do no less. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the minority whip. the presiding officer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: each year the defense funds medical research,

research that offers our service members concrete treatments for the particular diseases and inflictions that impact them the most, research which offers families hope, research that improves lives and research that saves lives. last summer during consideration of the fiscal year 2017 defense authorization act, there was a question as to whether congress would permit this lifesaving research to continue or whether instead we would wrap it up in so much red tape it would basically go away. i was proud that this senate chamber on a bipartisan basis voted resoundedly to continue the medical research. it was an important bipartisan vote, especially in a senate where we had a difficult time finding common ground. when it came to medical research in the department of defense for

members of the military and their families, we said unequivocally, we are committed to it on a bipartisan basis. i was proud to lead this fight, along with senator roy blunt of missouri, republican, to protect defense medical research. all together 40 of my republican and democratic colleagues cosponsored our effort. that vote was not just a vote for medical research, it was a vote for the men and women in the military and their families. the vote recognized that right now we are closer than ever to finding cures for dreaded disease like cancer, closer than ever to understanding how to delay the onset of neurological diseases like alzheimer's and parkinson's, closer than ever to developing a universal flu vaccine. that vote recognized that now is the time to be ramping up our

investment in medical research not scaling back. the senate spoke, but unfortunately it didn't end the debate. this year, the fiscal year 2018 national defense authorization act now pending on the floor of the senate repeats last year's research killing provisions and for unexplainable reasons adds two more. just as last year these provisions in the bill pending on the floor of the united states senate would effectively end the department of defense medical research program. like last year, the legislation wrapped it in more red tape that we can explain and we face the prospect for a second year in a row the end of this critical lifesaving research. by cutting medical research it will cost lives, the lives of our military and their families.

so i filed a bipartisan amendment along with 53 additional cosponsors. and my lead cosponsor, senator roy blunt, a republican from missouri, to remove this from the department of defense authorization bill. the underlying bill will end the d.o.d.'s research. the first provision, section 733, would require the secretary of defense to certify that each medical research grant awarded is, quote, designed to directly protect, enhance, or restore the health and safety of members of the armed forces. end of quote. not veterans, not retirees, not the spouses of military members, not the children of military members. to make matters worse, after the

secretary makes the certification in writing to the armed services committee, the defense department is then required to wait 90 days before awarding the grant. it's not only red tape, it's built in -- built-in delay. in my view veterans, retirees and spouses are all part of the military community. they use the d.o.d. health care system. they deserve to be counted. when a member of the military deploys, the family deploys and we ought to stand by all of them. the second provision, section 891, requires that medical research grant applicants meet the same accounting and pricing standards that d.o.d. requires of procurement contracts. well, that sounds simple enough, doesn't it? but these are regulations that private companies have to meet to sell the department of defense goods and services like

weapon systems and equipment. the third provision, section 892, changes the ground rules for how to handle the technical data generated by this research, information related to clinical trials, manufacturing processes. and how does this bill change it? this should sound familiar. by wiping away the existing regulations and imposing overly burdensome and unappealing regulations that would scare off research partners. i'm sympathetic to what this section may be attempting to do. in the taste of ever-increasing prescription drug costs, it does make sense for the federal government to have more rights when it comes to treatments when it comes to federal taxpayers dollars, however, we must be more strategic in how to approach this. i look forward to working across the aisle in helping to keep drug costs down especially for products that would in the be

possible without a federal investment. fourth provision, section 893, requires the defense contract audit agency to conduct audits on each grant recipient. for those unfamiliar with this audit agency, it is currently backlogged with tens of billions of dollars with procurement contractors it has to audit. this provision in this bill would add to this pile requiring it to add an additional 800 audits per month on medical research grants. more red tape, no real reason. taxpayers deserve to know how the money is being spent and the existing system does. the grant application must show that the research is relevant to the military. no grant makes it through the first round without showing clear military relevance. if an applicant fails this test, that's the end of the story. if they clear the hurdle, then they are subjected to a long list of critical defense

researchers and issue experts in the disease who question their research proposal. that's not it. representatives from the national institutes of health, the department of veterans' affairs also have input at that point to make sure it doesn't duplicate any existing research. these rules are in place to protect taxpayers dollars and they work. this year's defense authorization attempts to add red tape to the program in the name of protecting it, but in reality ending it. simply put these provisions would strangle the department of defense medical program in red tape. don't take my word for it, the coalition for medical research representing research institutions said, and i quote, these sections -- sections that i referred to could jeopardize funding for research could have broader relevance in the military including the health

and well-being of military families and veterans and the efficiency of the military health care system. we asked the department of defense itself, how would the new system in the proposed bill work? here's their analysis, and i put it up here for members to share. this language could jeopardize funding for research activities that have broader relevance -- i'm sorry. this language would, in essence, eliminate military family and military retiree medical research, inhibit military training programs, impact future health care aavoidance, imfact that would take place across all areas. researchers would most likely not want to do business with the department of defense. the provisions may create a chilling effect on potential awardees of d.o.d.

a chilling effect on medical research? is that what the senate wants? is that what we want to say to members of the military, their families, and retirees? i don't think so. these are put in the bill to have roadblocks to critical medical research. let's talk about the medical research funded by d.o.d. and the real world impact. the congressionally medical research program has invested almost $12 billion of innovative medical research. if this medical research command determines the appropriate medical research strategy, filling research gaps and creates a public-private partnership. in twowr, the institute of -- 2004, the institutes of medicine looked at what i discussed and what did they sphiend? i quote them, the program has

shown that it has been a scientifically productive effort. that is a pretty solid endorsement of $12 billion worth of medical research. they found this program, quote, concentrates its resources on research mechanisms that compliment rather than duplicate the research approaches of medical research in the united states such as the national institute of health. and they found the program appears to be well run, supporting high-quality research and contributing to research progress. the institutes of medicine also reviewed the program in 2016. and their conclusion just last summer about the same program, well established research funding organization covering many health conditions of concern to the members of the military, veterans, and their family, and the general public. inle general, and this is highlighted, the committee found that the crmd processes for reviewing an selecting

applications for funding to be effective in allocating funds for each research program. this program has been closely vetted as it should be. it's a matter of medical research critical to members of the military and their family. it's a meter of life and death -- matter of life and death and matter of spending taxpayer dollars. it is a good and solid program. it has not been wrought with scandal. there it is no reason to turn the lights out in the offices of these researchers. the institute of medicine had this right. we have real results to back up the way we feel about this. what areas have they embarked on with critical, successful research? one of the greatest success stories of this program is advances we've made in breast cancer treatment. in 1993, the department of defense awarded dr. dennis simon two grants totaling $1.7 million for a tumor tissue bank to study breast cancer. he began his work several years

earlier with funding from national cancer institute. the d.o.d. kicked in to help. dr. simon's d.o.d.-funded work helped to develop herseptin which is now f.d.a. approved, one the most widely used drugs to fight breast cancer. this research has not only saved the lives of countless women in the military, it's had application far beyond the military. the same thing is true when 2 comes -- when it comes to prostrate cancer, parkinson's disease. what we found over and over again is money invested in this program for medical research is money well spent. why, then, would we bury this program in red tape? i am happy that some 54, 55 senators from both sides of the aisle are going to stand with me. i see i have other colleagues preparing to speak. i'll return to speak more specifically about the programs of this agency. is there a person in this country who believes that america is spending too much money on medical research? well, perhaps there are.

but i haven't met them. what i have found over and over again is that members of both political parties are committed to medical research. the department of defense does a great job with the resources given to them. let's continue this program as a salute to our men and women in the military, their families, and our veterans. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, let me state the bottom line upfront. this year's ndaa once again focuses medical research dollars on the needs of service members and military veterans and increases transparency on how these taxpayer funds are being spent. what the amendment, the senator from illinois would do, would take hundreds of millions of dollars away from defense needs to spend on research activities totally unrelated to the mission of the military and shield these activities from critical oversight by the department and the congress. mr. president, let me state

upfront if these medical research dollars were invested in the proper branch of government, i would be one of its strongest supporters. what we are seeing here, what we see so often, it's the willy sutton syndrome. when they asked willy sutton why do you rob banks, he said that's where the money is. why do you think money for research for autism, prosthetics, many others have nothing to do with defense? let's take it out. let's appropriate the right amount of money to the right branch of government. so while we are watching the defense dollars, thanks to sequestration, going down over the last 20 years, congress has provided more than $11.7 billion in medical research. according to the -- what is aptly named over in defense, the

congressionally directed medical research program office, 12 out of 28 current research programs do not mention the military, combat, or service members in their official mission or vision statements. so let me repeat for the benefit of my colleagues. spending on medical research at the department of defense, nearly 50% of which has nothing to do with the military, has grown 4,000 percent since 1992. 4,000 percent. so in the meantime the budget control act is constraining d.o.d. budgets, doing great harm to our military. every single service chief and combatant commander the last five years has testified the armed services committee the budget caps have hurt our readiness, made it more difficult to respond to the nation's growing threats. yet during this time of severe defense budget restrictions, funding for the congressionall

congressionally-directed medical research program has nearly doubled. is that our priorities? i suggest to the senator from illinois, why don't you go to the right place in the appropriations bill and allocate research funds there? why don't you do that? you're not going there because it's the willy sutton syndrome. what you're doing is you're taking away from the men and women serving in the military what they need to defend this nation. mr. durbin: would the senator yield for a question? mr. mccain: no, i will not yield. the fact is -- the fact is, is that we have now had a rash of fatal accidents in the military, ten from the u.s.s. mccain, 17 more. we now have many more accidents due to the lack of readiness and training and maintenance that we do in combat. so what do we do? do we stop cutting the military? no. we add $11.7 billion for medical

research. i'm for medical research. i know of no one who opposes medical research, but do we take it out of defense? this is the directed spending on medical research at the department of defense. you may see that in 1992, it was a small amount of money for breast cancer research. and like other government programs, it has grown and grown and grown. and if you look at the -- if you'll take a look at the pink side here, you will see that what also has grown is those programs that have no relevance to the military. and i want to say one more time -- no, i'll say it again and again and again. if the senator from illinois wants this money spent for medical research, then take it out of the right place. don't be willie sutton. take it from where it belongs instead of taking it from the

men and women in the military who are undermanned, undertrained, underequipped and in harm's way. you have a choice here, my dear friends. who could be against medical research? nobody that i know. but who could be against taking money -- who could be in favor of taking money from the men and women in their training and equipment and readiness which every single service chief, every single service chief has testified before the armed services committee that we are putting the lives of men and women serving in the military in greater risk. so we're going to see these billions of dollars taken out of defending the nation and the arms and the training and the equipment that the men and women in the military need. now, if the senator from illinois wants to fund for military -- those that are military -- militarily of relevance, i would be glad to go along with that. but see what has grown and grown and grown from 1992 when it was

$25 million now to $11.7 -- no, it's -- now it's billions of dollars. funding has increased by 4,000 percent from $25 million in 1992 to over $1 billion last year. spending on medical research, nearly 50% of which has nothing to do with the military, has grown 4,000 percent since 1992. so let's not say that we are shorting the men and women in the military when that spending is increased by 4,000 percent. and i would like again, i would like every one of my colleagues to listen to the leaders of our military and the men and women who are serving, they don't have enough training. they don't have enough equipment. they're not ready. and it is being reflected in these kinds of accidents that are killing -- we are killing more members of the military in training than we are in combat. and every one of the service

chiefs will tell you that it's because of lack of funding for training and readiness and maintenance. this has to stop. the ndaa this year prohibits the secretary of defense and the service secretaries from funding or conducting medical research and development projects unless they certify that the project would protect, enhance, or restore the health and safety of members of the armed forces. is that an outrageous requirement that we should spend tax dollars that are earmarked for defense that would actually be used for defense? wouldn't that be outrageous? so it requires that medical research projects are open to competition and comply with other d.o.d., department of defense cost accounting standards. so we're not only asking them to be responsible but comply with the other department of defense cost accounting standards.

why that should be unacceptable, i don't know. so the senator from illinois has introduced an amendment that would strike these requirements, strike these requirements to adhere to the department of defense cost accounting standards. why? why would you not want to go along with cost accounting standards? so it's certainly not an accident that the largest spike in congressionally directed medical research funding coincides with the senator from illinois' tenure as chairman or ranking member of the appropriations committee defense subcommittee of which i say that he has done an outstanding job. hundreds of millions of dollars in the defense budget will be used for medical research unrelated to defense and it was not requested by the administration. if this amendment passes, hundreds of millions of dollars will be taken away from military service members and their families. if this amendment passes, hundreds of millions of dollars will not be used to provide a

full 2.1% pay raise for our troops. it won't be used to build up the size of our army and marine corporation. it won't be used to buy equipment so our airmen don't have to steal spare parts off airplanes in the bone yard to keep the oldest, small etion, and -- smallest and least ready air force in our history in the air. so i say to my friend and colleague from illinois, it's no the that he's wrong to support medical research. we all support medical research. it's that he has proposed the wrong amendment to support medical research instead of proposing to take away hundreds of millions of dollars from our military service members. he should be proposing a way to begin the long, overdue process of shifting nonmilitary medical research spending out of the department of defense and into the appropriate departments and agencies of our government. i want to emphasize again, this debate is not about the value of this medical research or whether congress should support it.

i of all people know the miracle of modern medicine, and i'm grateful for all who support it. and i'm sure every senator understands the value of medical research to americans suffering from these diseases, family and friends that care for them, and to all those who know the pain and grief of losing a loved one. but i will repeat again. this research does not belong in the department of defense. it belongs in civilian departments and agencies of our government. so i say to my colleagues, the defense authorization act focuses the department's research efforts on medical research that will lead to life-saving advancements in battlefield medicine and new therapies for recovery and rehabilitation of service members wounded on the battlefield. this amendment would harm our national security, the amendment from the senator from illinois would harm our national security by reducing the funding available for military relevant medical research that helps protect service men and women on

the battlefield and for military capabilities they desperately need to perform their missions. and it would continue to put decision making about medical research in the hands of lobbyists and politicians instead of medical experts where it belongs. i would like to repeat for at least the fifth time. i strongly support funding for medical research. i do not support funding for medical research that has nothing to do with the department of defense. the dollars are too scarce. you can see the way it has gone up and up and up. so what we're trying to do is preserve medical research where it applies to the department of defense and not use it for every other program, which should be funded by other agencies of government. and i'm very aware of the power and influence of the lobb lobbio lobby for this kind of money knowing full well that is the

easiest place to get the money. i just hope that some of us would understand the ten sail -- that ten sailors just died aboard the u.s.s. john s. mccain. they died because that ship was not ready and not trained and not equipped and not capable of doing its job because they didn't have enough funding. let's get our priorities straight. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: i ask consent for two minutes. a senator: mr. mccain: i object. go ahead. the presiding officer: majority whip. mr. cornyn: i ask consent the senator from illinois be recognized up for two -- up to two minutes and after that i be recognized. a senator: i object. i was next in line. i have a conflict. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i believe i'm recognized and have the floor. the presiding officer: majority whip is recognized. mr. cornyn: mr. president, the men and women defend us on a daily basis without a doubt but

now today is our time to do the same for them. one thing i cannot defend is how we continue to tie our own hands when it comes to funding the united states military. this week we're considering, of course, the defense authorization act. it will help ensure that our military has the resources it needs to achieve the missions of today and rise to the challenges of tomorrow. but there's a fundamental problem with the way we equip the men and women we task with defending us. it's called sequestration. a sequester is called for by the budget control act, which puts annual caps on defense and nondefense discretionary spending. and it enforces those caps with a kind of budget cleaver -- in other words, any spending that exceeds the caps automatically gets axed. that sound like a good idea in the abstract. who doesn't want to treat our

addiction to spending? who doesn't want to put the federal government on a diet? i certainly do. but i'm not willing to sacrifice our national security and the number-one priority of the federal government when it comes to providing for our mutual defense. in the words of the junior senator from arkansas, himself a veteran he said, rather than attack america's spending problem at its root, the law only clipped a few stray leaves off the branches. if we're going to be serious about reducing our deficit and debt, we have to be serious about our priorities by looking at all government spending, not just the 30% or so that's discretionary. the reason why we're not serious about dealing with our looming deficits and debt is not because of defense spending. it's because of mandatory entitlement spending, which are the political third rail of our

government. and politicians are so afraid to deal with that mandatory spending that we cut defense spending into the muscle, to the bone, and lead to the sort of dangers that the senator from arizona talked about in terms of a lack of readiness and training. the caps and sequester were driven by our failure to get serious about the real budget threat: explosive growth in government-funded entitlement programs. appropriate and necessary funding for our armed forces should not be held hostage because of of our inability to tighten our belt in other areas, where the real runaway growth has occurred. it's past time to annually pass appropriations to fund the department of defense.

it's past time to objectively assess and fund the actual and ever-changing defense needs of our country. but what are the results of the budget control act? well, we're not really saving money, but we are wasting time. we've repeatedly raised the budget control act's budget caps at the last minute, meaning they really don't keep spending down. meanwhile, our military's ability to plan and forecast is severely hampered. when you can't plan, you're not ready. and it's no exaggeration to say we now find ourselves in a true state of a readiness crisis. our military already underrates stress and stretched thin around the world has suffered from 15 years of continued operations, budgetary restrictions, and deferred investment. according to general walters, the assistant commandant of the marine corps, more than half of the marines fixed in rotary-wing

aircraft were unable to -- aircraft were unable to fly at the end of 2016. that's outrageous. the navy fleet currently stands as 277 of the 350-ship requirement. the air force at 134 fighter squadrons in 1991 when we drove saddam hussein out of kuwait. now it has only 55. 2017, 55. 1991, 134. and we have 1,500 fewer fighter pilots than we need. heather wilson said we've been doing too much with too little for too long. we need to hear these words,

mr. president, and we need to remember how they spell out in the real world, how they affect our sailors, our pilots, and our troops on the ground. this summer the nation mourned 42 service members who died in accidents related to readiness challenges. as senator mccain, the senator from arizona, the distinguished chairman of the armed services committee, pointed out, the death of 17 sailors aboard the u.s.s. john s. mccain and u.s.s. fitzgerald alone, plus other separate actions claiming the lives of 19 marines and six soldiers. meanwhile, the world has not become a safer, more peaceful place. we keep trying to cash that peace dividend, but there is no peace. and, in fact, when our adversaries see us retreating from our commitment to fund and

equip and train our military, it is a provocation. they see an opportunity, whether it's vladimir putin in crimea and ukraine or it's china in the south china sea or the kim jong-un in north korea. they see our retreat in terms of our financial commitment to support and train our military as a provocation and an invitation for them to fill the void. i'm reminded of a sobering quote from the former director of national intelligence during a hearing last year. james clapper said, in my time in the intelligence business -- and he served for 50 years in the intelligence business -- he said, i don't recall a time when we have been confront with a more diverse array of threats. in 50 years, he didn't recall us being confronted with a more diverse array of threats. and on top of these threats,

never before has our country been at war for such an extended period of time, and never before have we done so much with an all-volunteer military force strained by repeated deployments. while defense spending was cut nearly 15% over the last eight years under the previous administration. mr. president, here's what i say: let's pass the national defense authorization bill, which authorizes $700 billion for our nation's defense. let's give our troops the pay raise they deserve. let's address our readiness problems by authorizing increases in the overall number of sailors and marines -- soldiers and marines. and when doing that let's also do away with the sequester on defense spending. reductions to defense spending should be targeted. think scalpel, not meat cleaver. and our focus on cutting should be where the bulk of our spending is: outside of the

military on mandatory spending, growing at a rate of -- in excess of 5% a year, out of control and threatening the solvency of these important safety net programs. colleagues, while we take the fight to isis, while we seek to deter aggression in the pacific, support our emergency responders here at home, including the military, we can't postpone our problems. our challenges can't be postponed and are not disappearing. as i said a moment ago, our adversaries are watching close closely, modernizing while we here at home -- it while at home our readiness waivers and sequestration causes our aircraft to age, our soldiers to tire, and our national security to deteriorate. trouble is not going to wait on us getting our act together. whether or not our military is

ready or not, here it comes. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to thank and commend the leaders of the armed services committee -- i know the presiding officer serves on that committee, so he is well aware of the extraordinary work and service done by chairman mccain and

ranking member reed and our colleagues on the committee who have cooperated so collegially in a bipartisan way to produce a defense bill that supports our military men and women and their families and, more important, supports the united states of america in continuing the greatest and strongest power ever on the planet. i want to talk about some of the specifics of that measure but first to honor the 17 sailors who perished on the u.s.s. mccain and the u.s.s. fitzgerald. two of them were sailors from connecticut, and i want to pay tribute to electronics technician 2nd class dustin

doyon, and electronics technician winn. all of connecticut celebrates their extraordinary service and sacrifice to our nation, even as we are struck by the grief and share the sadness of their families as best we can, and i know that we also feel we owe it to them, their families, and all families who want their men and women in uniform to be safe, and an investigation is proceeding into the circumstances surrounding the crash that caused their deaths.

i will be interested, and i hope that that investigation will be expedited. the ndaa is a vital measure that preserves our national security in an era of unprecedented threats, and it delivers support necessary to sustain our service members and our national defense. a number of the provisions that i helped craft in this measure will improve opportunities for veterans, military sexual assault survivors, help wounded ukrainian soldiers, extend the special afghanistan immigrant visa program. those measures, among others, i am proud to have participated in crafting and supporting. this year's bill invests millions of dollars in submarines, helicopters, and a joint striker fighter engineer, all produced by connecticut's highly skilled and dedicated workforce.

the bill includes $8 billion for virginia and columbia-class submarines, including over $1 billion above the president's request for virginia funding and full funding for the columbia-class program following a successful amendment that i led to secure our undersea superiority and grow connecticut jobs. nothing is more important for our national defense than our undersea superiority. the stealth, strength, and power of our submarine force is vital to our national security. the measure also includes $25 million for undersea research and development. this measure provides as as well

$10.6 billion for 9 joint strike fighters across -- 94 joint strike fighters across the air force, navy, and marine corps, adding 24 above the budget request submitted by the president. those 24 are necessary, and they are important now. it includes $1 billion for 48 army bloc block -- blackhawks, d $354 million for the air force combat rescue helicopter program. today our active and reserve components are deployed together in afghanistan and the national guard brings unique capabilities to the fight. i am very proud of the connecticut national guard.